Main Roads Western Australia has published two guides for cyclists: this guide on sharing the path and a second guide for cyclists and motorists on sharing the road. The guide, Share the Path: A Guide for Pedestrians and Bicycle Riders is targeted at both cyclists and pedestrians with the aim of informing both users about good practice and the law. All cyclists and pedestrians are encouraged to read the guide.

Good brochure. I think all of the rules listed in there are the same as NSW.

Interesting that one of the pics at the top of the second page looks like cyclists are riding two abreast. Looking closely and the lane markings I think they guy on the right (the one closest to the centre line) is *just* behind the other one. Still, it's an odd choice of a pic for such a brochure...

Also interesting that yet again they are happy to use the ambiguous phrase about pedestrians having "right of way" without explaining it - this gets used regularly by walkers to mean that they can do what they like and really that cyclists shouldn't be on their DUP - and that they refer to walkers travelling in groups instead of saying that they need to travel in single file. And they make an effort about suggesting that cyclists don't travel in groups as they may lose sight of oncoming traffic, they could have suggested the etiquette of calling or signalling hazards back down the group.

The style that this is written in doesn't convey well, really this is the sort of literature that I'd generally only read while on the loo, deciding if it should be good toilet paper or not. Probably too glossy.

Good to see some official advice that pedestrians should keep left. On these forums we have had comment (especially out of the City of Stirling) that because the RTC doesn't make it compulsory for pedestrians to keep left, they can walk where they like. A Stirling City councillor has advocated walking facing on-coming traffic on shared paths (ie on the right side). Some common sense finally prevailing?

On some shared paths I prefer to walk to face oncoming cyclists, usually in response to poor cyclist behaviour (i.e. I can see them coming, rather than have them shave me with no warning). The advice to walk on the left is purely etiquette and of course etiquette goes both ways.

the ambigious phrase about pedestrians having right of way my reading of this means that if you hit a pedestrian on these paths, you are at fault,if that pedestrian dies you are in serious troubleI think this was brought in following the unfortunate death of an overseas visitor who stepped backwards to take a photo into the path of a cyclist and later died from his injuriesyou would think that shared path ment shared riskon the South perth side and on riverside drive there are now dual paths with symbols painted on them for cyclists and pedestrian respectivly, but the cycle ones are still regularly used by pedestrians but at least there is some recognition that cyclist and pedestrians are not a good mixmany cycle paths in europe are bicycle highways designed to get commuters and travellers from A to B at reasonable speed and are not routed through family barbeque areas (south perth) and kiddies playgrounds (burswood)It would seem that much of the psp is designed for a family with hybrids and a couple of kids bikes for leisure cycling and that commuters or other cyclists are not catered for here or on the roads

wellington_street wrote:On some shared paths I prefer to walk to face oncoming cyclists, usually in response to poor cyclist behaviour (i.e. I can see them coming, rather than have them shave me with no warning). The advice to walk on the left is purely etiquette and of course etiquette goes both ways.

I don't like either option but unfortunately that is all there are. Walking onthe same side is certainly still risky even for a faultless ped. Interspersed with the bulk of riders there are still more than enough idiots riding to put the lie to the "small minority" tag.

This morning the number of single and grouped riders that sliced close to me and to pedestrians and slower riders was quite alarming. I feel that is has got far worse in the last few weeks than it was before or was about the same time last year.

Totally agree. As Cycling, over recent years, seems to be attracting more than it's fair share of "idiots"Eye prefer to see the enemy and look them straight in the eye (while walking) (... and you still get the solo idiot looking down, that does not even see you, till the last moment)

Lone Rider- I rode on the long, dark road... before I danced under the lights.

toofat wrote:I think this was brought in following the unfortunate death of an overseas visitor who stepped backwards to take a photo into the path of a cyclist and later died from his injuries

The relevant law you are referring to is the application of culpable driving applying to cyclists. This came into effect on August 1, 2008 when the Criminal Code, Section 284 was amended. The section deals with Culpable Driving of vehicles such as bikes, skateboards, scooters, animals and even shopping trolleys and provides for a penalty of 10 years imprisonment for culpable driving causing death and seven years for causing grievous bodily harm. Culpable Driving includes driving/riding a bike in a manner, including speed, that in the circumstances is dangerous to any person. This offence would apply to a cyclist running down a pedestrian.

just4tehhalibut wrote:Also interesting that yet again they are happy to use the ambiguous phrase about pedestrians having "right of way" without explaining it - this gets used regularly by walkers to mean that they can do what they like and really that cyclists shouldn't be on their DUP - and that they refer to walkers travelling in groups instead of saying that they need to travel in single file.

Slightly off topic, but twice this morning I was passed by cyclists while I was passing a slow cyclist or pedestrians on the Mitchell Freeway PSP. In both cases I looked behind, indicated my intention to pull out to pass and then got wizzed by a cyclist from behind.Bit of sharing the path wouldn't go astray there.

This happened to me the other week go past a slower rider and no one was in my mirrors and I indicated anyhow next thing you know ZIPP 3 cyclists go flying past, 1km later what do I see, the pair of them down and they took someone else down as well.

yes hence the name, my point was that it is only designed to be shared by slow moving recreational cyclist. despite the massive increase in commuter numbers there are almost no paths or roads being built to cater for one of the fastest growing segments of transportation

"Just like your roads are not designed exclusively for one type of user. The PSPs are not bicycle freeways"but the roads are designed exclusively for one type of user, motorized vehicles.

Just like if you are driving and you come to a shopping precinct or a country town, you need to slow down to ride at a safe speed.

the only truly safe speed is walking speed which defeats the object of cycling in the first place

Not a huge fan of pedestrians walking toward me on the left side of the path. If there is traffic coming the other way and the peds are not prepared to move out of your way then you have no option but to come to a complete stop until either the peds walk around you or the path way is clear ahead.

rollin66 wrote:Not a huge fan of pedestrians walking toward me on the left side of the path. If there is traffic coming the other way and the peds are not prepared to move out of your way then you have no option but to come to a complete stop until either the peds walk around you or the path way is clear ahead.

But isn't this the same problem if there is traffic coming the other way and the pedestrian is walking in the same direction as you on the left?

Baalzamon wrote:This happened to me the other week go past a slower rider and no one was in my mirrors and I indicated anyhow next thing you know ZIPP 3 cyclists go flying past, 1km later what do I see, the pair of them down and they took someone else down as well.

There a few spots wher I signal that I am moving right. But I only sneak the arm away from my body slowly. If I signaled firmly I would take out one of those passers.

We want a meter from cars? I'd be happy for half a meter from the significant number of idiots riding bikes.

rollin66 wrote:Not a huge fan of pedestrians walking toward me on the left side of the path. If there is traffic coming the other way and the peds are not prepared to move out of your way then you have no option but to come to a complete stop until either the peds walk around you or the path way is clear ahead.

But isn't this the same problem if there is traffic coming the other way and the pedestrian is walking in the same direction as you on the left?

Well, you don't have to come to complete stop, just slow down to the same speed as the slower cyclist/pedestrian/pram etc until the oncoming traffic has passed (don't we all do that though?). But there is the situation where pedestrians are keeping to the right, cyclists approaching from both directions, cyclist keeping left heading towards the pedestrians stops (as they should as they can't move into the path of an oncoming cyclist) and the pedestrians then step into the path of the cyclist approaching them from behind them without looking. I've seen this several times, some VERY close calls. There is also the situation where 2 (unrelated) groups of pedestrians are occupying both the left and right hand side of the path but heading in the same direction & both parties think they are in the "right" - what do other path users, heading in either direction, do?

Next you'll be suggesting we ride into oncoming traffic because of the idiot drivers.

The logic does not scale.

Where I grew up most of the roads don't have adjacent footpaths so to walk anywhere you had to walk on the road edge. We had it absolutely drummed into us that you walked against the traffic. In fact it is recommended in this government publication. IMO the same logic applies to the PSPs - though hard when everywhere you look it says "keep left".

On another note, I think the cyclist is always a fault should be waived if it is shown that the pedestrian is plugged into earphones, or texting on a mobile phone!